New nanotech promises nothing will ever get wet—so how should it be used?

Infomercials are notoriously tough to take seriously. Anyone with minor computer familiarity can sniff out the "MALWARE IS COMING NOW" 3am appeals. And even though something like the Slap Chop works, its autotune remix tends to be more famous than the actual product.

The newest infomercial to go viral, however, appears to have a surprising level of credibility. Take a look at Ultra Ever Dry, a "revolutionary super hydrophobic coating that repels water and refined oils using nanotechnology." The demonstration video is nearing 500,000 views in a little more than two weeks, and it already received attention from The Daily Mail, i09, and NPR (where it was written up by Radiolab's Robert Krulwich no less).

As any fan of the old PitchMen series knows, a good infomercial relies heavily on a wow-inspiring demo. Ultra Ever Dry is no different, with a series of coated vs. uncoated demos showing everything from concrete to oils unable to penetrate a layer of Ultra Ever Dry. Below, you can see some before-and-after screen grabs of gardening gloves with mud or a side-by-side of a funnel and paint (Another favorite: a piece of glass is framed with a perimeter coating of the substance and beads of green test liquid flow quickly to the center.)

Before (untreated glove on the left)...

Ultra Ever Dry

After!

Ultra Ever Dry

...and even paint is no match!

Ultra Ever Dry

The Ultra Ever Dry website lacks much in the way of information beyond pricing and availability (it's $96 for a quart of the top coat, $53/quart for the base). And, naturally, the components appear to be proprietary and the company offering it seems to be a distributor (so no immediate clues on how the substance works or opportunities to check out the patents). A related instructional video reveals a few more details about the product itself. It's potentially dangerous to the point that a user should use gloves and goggles, it can survive temperatures between -30 and 300 degrees Fahrenheit, and abrasions may impact performance.

Plus, a safety data sheet helpfully notes that it has a "fragrant mint like odor."

Ars is considering testing some of this product around the Orbiting HQ, but in the meantime we've certainly been dreaming about the possibilities should this prove viable. If you can solve the abrasion issue, could such nanotechnologies eventually evolve to help air travel during inclement weather? Even as is, might this help keep keyboards everywhere safe from errant coffee and water bottles? For what it's worth, Krulwich had an even wilder test scenario suggestion—what happens if a person coats themselves then dives into a pool? (Could make moderately entertaining fiction, certainly).

What potential applications or test cases would you most want to see for the nanotechnology Ultra Ever Dry boasts? Share the hypotheticals you've read so far or offer up your own in the comments below.

Promoted Comments

I've already ordered some. I was thinking of spraying it on my shower walls so mildew would never grow on them. Or on my ping-pong table so I could just leave it outside without worrying about rust. Or just drawing a pattern on a board, angling it and watching the water pour down it.

They said it would last 6-7 years if you don't have stuff rubbing up against it. And that it might not last on things you handled with bare hands a lot.

171 Reader Comments

If it were non-active and reliable at normal computing temperature ranges, you could do some pretty interesting stuff.

yea, this was my first thought as well. more specifically, a laptop's or smartphones motherboard. the inside of the laptop and motherboard are an unlikely place for physical damage to be done ( and if it is done, well, this wouldn't help anyway). However, waterproof smartphone sounds like a very good idea to me. well, dropping the phone in the water might still short the battery, but that's easily (in non-apple devices) replaceable.

My understanding is, that would actually be a bad idea. The treated surface is effectively separated from the liquid by a small layer of air, and everything I've ever heard about cavitation around impellers and propellers is that it should be avoided at all costs.

Now, I would imagine there's a use for this on supercavitating torpedos if it can withstand the forces. Also, it could be just the thing to help seaplanes get away from the surface more easily.

No thanks. I'll let others try this stuff out. Any thing with science that goes to an extreme is likely not safe.

Says the person using several billion transistors condensed into a few square centimeters, flipping several billion times a second and sending millions of pulses per second of data across the entire globe.

Anyway with people talking about health issues: My inclination would be that a substance that repels oil and water would just pass right through you with no effect. It's stuff that gets absorbed into your body that you have to be worried about, not stuff that is powerfully repelled from your tissue.

I got these toilet plungers at a big-box store that are supposed to repel water like this. They are actually pretty amazing. When you put it in the toilet, it looks like it has a bubble of air all along its surface. Then when you take it out it appears completely dry. I didn't touch it (after taking it out of the toilet), but I don't see a single drop of water.

What about health considerations. It is well known today the all sorts of micro-particles can create serious health troubles in the human lunge. Examples are : super fine toner particles from laser printers.Do we know anything about this new material regarding long time effects ?

For all the people talking about what happens if you coat your skin or swallow it - probably about the same thing that happens if you coat your skin or swallow paint, or any other coating/sealant - nothing good. We are surrounded by things that are terrible for us if we encase ourselves in them - concrete, dirt, paint, etc etc... Not really sure why this particular substance seems noteworthy in that regard.

As with concrete, paint and dirt, I would imagine this material is fine in small doses - it probably is a simple every day material that when applied in a certain way or purified causes this hydrophobic reaction... My guess is some kind of organosilicon based material suspended in an alcohol of some sort to allow drying after application?

1. What is the working temperature range for Ultra-Ever Dry SE 7.6.110? Answer: The working temperature range for the product is from -30°F to 300°F (-34°C to 149°C) once it has been applied. It has been effective at temperatures up to 500°F, but we would recommend further testing for any application that will see temperatures above 300°F (260°C).

What effect does it have on ice or rather sleet? I'd assume the answer is actually on the website:

Quote:

2. How long will Ultra-Ever Dry coating last? Answer: Environmental conditions will affect duration and these can vary. Abrasion is the leading cause of reduction in the superhydrophobic coating’s life. Under non-abrasive, static conditions, you should expect to see many years of outdoor service. Indoor applications will exceed that of outdoor application

the change from liquid to crystailine structure would naturally cause the snow to become an abrasive agent. But sleet--like the kind that causes powerlines to sag and icicles to form--is still mostly liquid. Would the liquid part of the sleet carry the ice? or would it accumulate more rapidly in certain areas, get stuck and causes clogs, etc, etc?

Actually, thinking back on it, isn't it like *your job* to try something before passing on late-night infomercials ?

Yeah, the very least Ars could do is to actually try the stuff out. A few words about how superhydrophobic materials work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhydrophobe) would have been nice too. Is there even any reason to even think that this is in fact "new (nano)tech" as proclaimed in the headline? The only "new" thing I see here is this being sold to consumers in paint form. Slow news days and lazy journalism make an ugly combination.

'abrasions may impact performance.' This is the kicker. Those demos are all freshly coated items. How long does it last under normal use, much less heavy construction use?

When you buy a new car they offer you a water repellent coating option for something like $500. I had it 'thrown in' as part of the bargaining when I bought my last car, and it was pretty damn neat. Rain just sheeted off the windshield, no need for wipers. Of course it was gone in a couple months.

If it were non-active and reliable at normal computing temperature ranges, you could do some pretty interesting stuff.

yea, this was my first thought as well. more specifically, a laptop's or smartphones motherboard. the inside of the laptop and motherboard are an unlikely place for physical damage to be done ( and if it is done, well, this wouldn't help anyway). However, waterproof smartphone sounds like a very good idea to me. well, dropping the phone in the water might still short the battery, but that's easily (in non-apple devices) replaceable.

Incidentally, those Apple smartphones are more water-resistant than you might think. I accidentally dropped my 4S into a pot of fresh chicken stock (don't ask), and it didn't even turn off. Just kept on merrily working, despite being immersed in four inches of greasy, gritty broth.

I've already ordered some. I was thinking of spraying it on my shower walls so mildew would never grow on them. Or on my ping-pong table so I could just leave it outside without worrying about rust. Or just drawing a pattern on a board, angling it and watching the water pour down it.

They said it would last 6-7 years if you don't have stuff rubbing up against it. And that it might not last on things you handled with bare hands a lot.

'abrasions may impact performance.' This is the kicker. Those demos are all freshly coated items. How long does it last under normal use, much less heavy construction use?

When you buy a new car they offer you a water repellent coating option for something like $500. I had it 'thrown in' as part of the bargaining when I bought my last car, and it was pretty damn neat. Rain just sheeted off the windshield, no need for wipers. Of course it was gone in a couple months.

you can do that with a $2 bottle of rain-x...the bottle will last you the year easy.

Would it make any difference to laminar flow - or turbulent flow for that matter - if applied to hulls of ships or even submarines? Sharkskin works because it causes water to stick, creating an effective layer of water over the shark that itself slips through water better. No 'sharkskin' effect would imply worse levels of drag, but then if the water couldn't stick at all, then the drag should be less, yes?

Those Chemical/Aerospace/Mechanical engineers out there will have to forgive my EE background and crude knowledge on the subject. I'm working with only my passing fascination with fluid mechanics and a little intuition. Maybe some day I'll get around to actually learning fluids.

The shark skin confuses me a little because (in general) fluid flow over a surface is governed by the 'no slip' boundary condition which states that a layer of the fluid adheres to the surface. (think adhesion vs cohesion here) For that reason, I don't see sharkskin as being special in this case.

As I understand it, what we're talking about here is reducing the drag of an object in fluid flow. The important quantity in calculating drag here is cross sectional area. The cross sectional area of a solid object is fixed, but based on the flow across the surface, you wind up with a boundary layer next to the surface inside of which is a shear flow. Because this boundary layer causes an increase in the apparent cross sectional area, this is the key component in reducing drag. Neglecting the thickness of a paint-like coating on the orthonormal projection of a boat (which I think we all agree can be done), what we're left with is the requirement that the boundary layer be reduced.

Now, I am lead to understand that the 'no slip' boundary condition is simply an approximation and has been contradicted by several special cases of fluid flow, one of which is over extremely hydrophobic surfaces. If this is true, then it seems that what this boils down to is a slippage of the fluid against the hull. Exactly how/if this dictates a reduction in boundary layer thickness (and thus apparent cross sectional area) I am not sure, though my intuition says that it does for laminar flow.

A thought experiment: An infinite plane moving with a velocity ubeneath a large (infinite depth) volume of fluid. (think bottom of an infinite rectangular parallelapiped, sliding along the contained fluid)

If you imagine that first layer of fluid (that would normally adhere), it is moving with some velocity v along the plate. Now consider a system where the 'no slip' condition holds true. For a continuous velocity shear gradiant normal to the surface, there must be a height x where the fluid velocity is also v. This gives us some decrease x in height of the boundary layer where the 'no slip' condition does not hold true. This means, that we have a reduction in the effective cross sectional area, which results in a proportionally (drag is proportional to A) reduced drag force.

Again, I'm no expert, but the thought experiment was fun so I thought I'd give it a whirl. If someone who knows more than I do sees something wrong I won't be offended if you correct me or poke holes in my logic.

'abrasions may impact performance.' This is the kicker. Those demos are all freshly coated items. How long does it last under normal use, much less heavy construction use?

When you buy a new car they offer you a water repellent coating option for something like $500. I had it 'thrown in' as part of the bargaining when I bought my last car, and it was pretty damn neat. Rain just sheeted off the windshield, no need for wipers. Of course it was gone in a couple months.

Seems like the fact that it doesn't last too long is a safety feature rather than a detriment. I think hospitals should coat everything in this stuff. If it's repelling water does that mean its repelling bacteria and viruses as well?

It's a bit expensive, but I'd love to coat a full set of clothes in this stuff. I do a lot of my own car repairs and I now have several t-shirts and pants that are probably coated in a toxic amount of grease and oil. Though, I do have to wonder if all that grease and oil isn't being absorbed by my clothes, how dirty is everything else going to get.

Why have I never heard of this? Except... can i actually go for a few days without my iphone while its being shipped off and treated with Science? The cost is totally worth it if it behaves as advertised.

Would it make any difference to laminar flow - or turbulent flow for that matter - if applied to hulls of ships or even submarines? Sharkskin works because it causes water to stick, creating an effective layer of water over the shark that itself slips through water better. No 'sharkskin' effect would imply worse levels of drag, but then if the water couldn't stick at all, then the drag should be less, yes?

Those Chemical/Aerospace/Mechanical engineers out there will have to forgive my EE background and crude knowledge on the subject. I'm working with only my passing fascination with fluid mechanics and a little intuition. Maybe some day I'll get around to actually learning fluids.

The shark skin confuses me a little because (in general) fluid flow over a surface is governed by the 'no slip' boundary condition which states that a layer of the fluid adheres to the surface. (think adhesion vs cohesion here) For that reason, I don't see sharkskin as being special in this case.

As I understand it, what we're talking about here is reducing the drag of an object in fluid flow. The important quantity in calculating drag here is cross sectional area. The cross sectional area of a solid object is fixed, but based on the flow across the surface, you wind up with a boundary layer next to the surface inside of which is a shear flow. Because this boundary layer causes an increase in the apparent cross sectional area, this is the key component in reducing drag. Neglecting the thickness of a paint-like coating on the orthonormal projection of a boat (which I think we all agree can be done), what we're left with is the requirement that the boundary layer be reduced.

Now, I am lead to understand that the 'no slip' boundary condition is simply an approximation and has been contradicted by several special cases of fluid flow, one of which is over extremely hydrophobic surfaces. If this is true, then it seems that what this boils down to is a slippage of the fluid against the hull. Exactly how/if this dictates a reduction in boundary layer thickness (and thus apparent cross sectional area) I am not sure, though my intuition says that it does for laminar flow.

A thought experiment: An infinite plane moving with a velocity ubeneath a large (infinite depth) volume of fluid. (think bottom of an infinite rectangular parallelapiped, sliding along the contained fluid)

If you imagine that first layer of fluid (that would normally adhere), it is moving with some velocity v along the plate. Now consider a system where the 'no slip' condition holds true. For a continuous velocity shear gradiant normal to the surface, there must be a height x where the fluid velocity is also v. This gives us some decrease x in height of the boundary layer where the 'no slip' condition does not hold true. This means, that we have a reduction in the effective cross sectional area, which results in a proportionally (drag is proportional to A) reduced drag force.

Again, I'm no expert, but the thought experiment was fun so I thought I'd give it a whirl. If someone who knows more than I do sees something wrong I won't be offended if you correct me or poke holes in my logic.

I worked at a lab where we did a test for the USOC and coated rowing shells in a superhydrophobic material created at the Oak Ridge National Lab. In our drag testing, we determined that surface prep (i.e. many hours of sanding with ever diminishing grit numbers and an application of Rain-X) produced a lower drag number than the coating at a speed above a relatively small value, like 1 knot.

I think the science bears this out because the reason these coatings work is due to the structure of the surface layer. In a laminar flow the water still has to move past the surface, therefore you still have a boundary layer. So if the microscopic surface of the coating is "rougher" than the surface of the body that has just been sanded and rain-x'd, the boundary layer for the coating will be larger and drag higher.

I don't think this was intensely studied, it was just a short test to see if we could make the boats faster with the coating. Therefore, I am unaware of any microscopic pictures taken to compare surface roughness.

In terms of go-fast boats, I'm not sure how useful this will be because at higher speeds I believe the wavemaking resistance is the larger component of total drag, not the skin friction. However, strictly as an anti-fouling measure maybe this will be useful.

I am also an EE that knows just enough to be dangerous, so I would be interested to hear others opinions.

I bought a pair of bathroom plungers made by Rubbermaid and coated with this stuff (they were on sale at Costco for $14 a pair). Water does in fact bead off the matte gray coating, which makes for less mess when you are done plunging a recalcitrant sink.